Opinion of American drone policies

[John Dibble]

Use of drones is better than sending in troops in most cases. Given that the enemy in this case is a loose organization rather than a state, they can be in places where we just can't send troops to capture them. Using troops would probably result in far more bystander casualties.

If someone among the enemy organization happens to be a US citizen, I have no problem with the notion of using a drone against them. I also have no issue with some form of judicial oversight - if an American citizen living abroad has enough evidence against them to label them a terrorist and there is no practical means of bringing them in for a trial, then it shouldn't be too big of a deal to get a panel of judges to sign off on authorizing a drone strike if the opportunity should arise.

[DC Al Fine]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Drones: Because violation Pakistani sovereignty is always the best policy.

[Lief 🗽]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Drones: Because violation Pakistani sovereignty is always the best policy.

Often times, yeah it is. Remember when they let Osama bin Laden live in a large compound about 1000 yards away from the Pakistani equivalent of Westpoint?

[bedstuy]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Drones: Because violation Pakistani sovereignty is always the best policy.

On some level, the US has the permission of the Pakistani government to conduct drone strikes.  Even if we didn't have permission, under principles of international law, the US is within its rights.  Al Qaeda is engaging in armed attacks against the US and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to prevent Al Qaeda from operating in its tribal region.  The US has a right to defend itself, even if it intrudes onto what is technically the territory of Pakistan.

Part of being a sovereign nation is not allowing an NGO (Al Qaeda) to basically set up a independent state within your borders and use your country as a base to attack innocent people.  Pakistan has failed at that. 

[Goldwater]

I pick option 1 of course.

[Rooney]

Drones are weapons too powerful to be trusted to a single man. I strongly oppose the presidential authority over drone strikes. This power must be stripped from the president and given solely to the United States Congress along with all other war powers.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Agreed completely. ESPECIALLY the "American citizen" nonsense and trying to drum up sympathy for al-Awlaki.

[Donerail]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Agreed completely. ESPECIALLY the "American citizen" nonsense and trying to drum up sympathy for al-Awlaki.

Why don't you feel sympathy for a completely innocent 16-year-old murdered while eating dinner?

[TNF]

Actually, I think I'm going to change my vote from Option 2 to Option 1.

I just want armed drones banned from domestic use.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Agreed completely. ESPECIALLY the "American citizen" nonsense and trying to drum up sympathy for al-Awlaki.

Why don't you feel sympathy for a completely innocent 16-year-old murdered while eating dinner?

There's a huge difference between that and his father.

[morgieb]

Option 3. It is a violation of human rights and law to kill people who have not been charged with offences.

I don't really have a problem with drones if they are killing known terrorists though. But this could kill innocent civilians and as others said, surely a right to a fair trial is the best idea?

[bedstuy]

Option 3. It is a violation of human rights and law to kill people who have not been charged with offences.

I don't really have a problem with drones if they are killing known terrorists though. But this could kill innocent civilians and as others said, surely a right to a fair trial is the best idea?

What international law are you referring to?  There are situations where people can be legally killed.  Legal military actions kill people.  Police can legally kill someone engaged in a shooting spree.  Obviously, the best case scenario is to capture people alive, but it's not always practical.  Would you say that a US soldier can't return fire from a Taliban insurgent (at least until the Taliban soldier has been convicted in a court)?  Give me a break.

[AkSaber]

Option 3. It is a violation of human rights and law to kill people who have not been charged with offences.

I don't really have a problem with drones if they are killing known terrorists though. But this could kill innocent civilians and as others said, surely a right to a fair trial is the best idea?

It's something, isn't it? The warmongers just throw out the word "terrorism" and we're all supposed to shut up and take their word for it these people are dangerous.

It worked wonderfully justifying the Iraq war. And since Obama's been beating the war drum, the liberals have turned into neocons.

[Donerail]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Agreed completely. ESPECIALLY the "American citizen" nonsense and trying to drum up sympathy for al-Awlaki.

Why don't you feel sympathy for a completely innocent 16-year-old murdered while eating dinner?

There's a huge difference between that and his father.

Both were US citizens murdered abroad by drones.

[DC Al Fine]

Option 3. It is a violation of human rights and law to kill people who have not been charged with offences.

I don't really have a problem with drones if they are killing known terrorists though. But this could kill innocent civilians and as others said, surely a right to a fair trial is the best idea?

It's something, isn't it? The warmongers just throw out the word "terrorism" and we're all supposed to shut up and take their word for it these people are dangerous.

It worked wonderfully justifying the Iraq war. And since Obama's been beating the war drum, the liberals have turned into neocons.

Don't be silly, it's not warmongering when Obama does it

[dead0man]

It seems there is a lot of talk lately about drones.  What's the difference between using a drone to kill terrorists (or "terrorists" if that makes you feel better) and using an Apache or F15?

[Insula Dei]

It seems there is a lot of talk lately about drones.  What's the difference between using a drone to kill terrorists (or "terrorists" if that makes you feel better) and using an Apache or F15?

The difference is merely aesthetical, though Apache Helicopters do seem to hold less promise for future domestic use, which may explain why some Americans are so uneasy about drones.

[Nhoj]

It seems there is a lot of talk lately about drones.  What's the difference between using a drone to kill terrorists (or "terrorists" if that makes you feel better) and using an Apache or F15?

There isnt, which is to say neither are acceptable

[Paul Kemp]

It seems there is a lot of talk lately about drones.  What's the difference between using a drone to kill terrorists (or "terrorists" if that makes you feel better) and using an Apache or F15?

For some, the latter don't conjure up images of fear of Big Brother bombing your home because you want to end the Fed.

[John Dibble]

It seems there is a lot of talk lately about drones.  What's the difference between using a drone to kill terrorists (or "terrorists" if that makes you feel better) and using an Apache or F15?

There isnt, which is to say neither are acceptable

If none of those are acceptable, how would you propose to deal with terrorists on foreign soil where we can't send in troops to capture or kill them?

[Nhoj]

It seems there is a lot of talk lately about drones.  What's the difference between using a drone to kill terrorists (or "terrorists" if that makes you feel better) and using an Apache or F15?

There isnt, which is to say neither are acceptable

If none of those are acceptable, how would you propose to deal with terrorists on foreign soil where we can't send in troops to capture or kill them?

Well i probably should have said that pragmatically yes drones are preferable, but as far as civilian casualties go there is largely no difference between the two.

Now as to what I propose? Absolutely nothing I dont personally believe in any sort of killing. Which is not to say I don't see the benefits of it, Its just that I oppose it on principle.

[John Dibble]

It seems there is a lot of talk lately about drones.  What's the difference between using a drone to kill terrorists (or "terrorists" if that makes you feel better) and using an Apache or F15?

There isnt, which is to say neither are acceptable

If none of those are acceptable, how would you propose to deal with terrorists on foreign soil where we can't send in troops to capture or kill them?

Well i probably should have said that pragmatically yes drones are preferable, but as far as civilian casualties go there is largely no difference between the two.

Now as to what I propose? Absolutely nothing I dont personally believe in any sort of killing. Which is not to say I don't see the benefits of it, Its just that I oppose it on principle.

So if you were the one setting policy it would be to do nothing?

[patrick1]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Agreed completely. ESPECIALLY the "American citizen" nonsense and trying to drum up sympathy for al-Awlaki.

Why don't you feel sympathy for a completely innocent 16-year-old murdered while eating dinner?

There's a huge difference between that and his father.

Both were US citizens murdered abroad by drones.

It is very callous but:  You lie down with dogs you get fleas.  This is a war. You will have some child soldiers and innocents killed. Awlaki and Co. were engaging the US and its citizens in war. You don't pass up an opportunity to prevent another 9/11 or worse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How is killing al-Awlaki different from killing bin Laden?

[SPC]

How is killing al-Awlaki different from killing bin Laden?

Bin Laden actually killed people as opposed to posting a blog?